Win, loss, or even domain: a social comparison analysis

Michele Garbelotto

Theoretical models of the social comparison field

Core concepts of social comparison

“[social comparison is] the process of thinking about information about one or more person in relation to the self” (Wood, 1996, pp. 520–521)

  1. type of standard
  2. comparison dimension
  3. comparison direction
    1. upward
    2. downward
    3. lateral
  4. contrast vs assimilation

See Arigo et al. (2020)1.

Festinger’s Social Comparison Theory1

  1. content of comparison studied
    1. opinion
    2. abilities
  2. motivational core
    1. drive to accurately evaluate one’s opinions and abilities
  3. tendency to compare with similar others, or slightly better others (in the case of abilities)
    1. “similar” in what sense?
  4. … (other hypotheses)

Selective Accessibility Model1 (SAM)

  1. explanatory objective: prediction of assimilation and contrast
  2. selective accessibility mechanism
    1. phases
      1. initial broad assessment of similarity
        1. perceived dissimilarity \(\rightarrow\) dissimilarity hypothesis is tested
        2. perceived similarity \(\rightarrow\) similarity hypothesis is tested
    2. heightened cognitive accessibility
      1. similarity hp \(\rightarrow\) accessibility of standard-consistent self-knowledge \(\rightarrow\) assimilation
      2. dissimilarity hp \(\rightarrow\) accessibility of standard-inconsistent self-knowledge \(\rightarrow\) contrast

SAM

Selective accessibility mechanism (Mussweiler, 2020)

SAM

Predictions 1

  1. cognitive accessibility \(\rightarrow\) self-evaluation outcome
    1. manipulation of similarity (different task) \(\rightarrow\) assimilation
    2. manipulation of dissimilarity (different task) \(\rightarrow\) contrast
  2. self-evaluation outcome \(\rightarrow\) cognitive accessibility
    1. manipulation of comparison target
      1. similar comparison target \(\rightarrow\) focus on similarity (different task)
      2. dissimilar comparison target \(\rightarrow\) focus on dissimilarity (different task)

SAM

Predictions 2

  1. consequences
    1. motivational
    2. affective (Epstude & Mussweiler, 2009)
    • e.g., assimilation with higher standard \(\rightarrow\) > motivation and similar affect
  2. concept of similarity
    1. self-evaluation: similarity on the critical dimension
    2. cognitive accessibility: similarity of anything
      1. e.g., social category, critical dimension, related dimension, etc.
  3. efficiency of similarity testing

Attributional comparison models1

Theoretical origin

Related attributes hypothesis (Goethals & Darley, 1977)

Proxy model (Martin, 2000; Wheeler et al., 1997)

  1. how do people predict their performance?
    1. “can i do X?”
  2. variables
    1. maximum effort exertion
    2. similarity on related attributes
    • also: perceived similarity of tasks

Attributional comparison models

Triadic model (Suls et al., 2000)

  1. types of opinions
    1. value
    2. belief
    3. mixed-type
  2. preference assessment: “do I like X?”
    1. comparison with a person with similar values
  3. belief assessment: “is X correct?”
    1. comparison with an expert
  1. preference prediction: “will I like X?”
    1. pattern of agreement or disagreement with the target
    2. reaction of a person to X
      1. assuming similarity on related attribute
  2. mixed-type opinion
    1. comparison with a “similar expert”

Dimensional Comparison Theory1

Origin

DCT is a theoretical extension of the Internal/External Frame of Reference Model (I/E model) (Marsh, 1986).

What is “dimensional comparison”?

Dimensional comparison, like social and temporal comparison, consists in evaluating a target by comparing it with a reference standard (Möller et al., 2016).

Specifically, in dimensional comparison both the target and the standard are attributes of the person making the comparison (Möller & Köller, 2001).

Dimensional Comparison Theory

Core questions

  1. what is the motivation behind dimensional comparison?
    1. self-evaluation (or self-differentiation)
    2. self-maintenance
    3. self-enhancement
    4. self-improvement
  1. what areas are compared dimensionally?
    1. comparison between any personal attributes
    2. three variables
      1. common context
      2. similar metric
      3. perceived importance
  1. what are the effects of dimensional comparison?
    1. contrast \(\leftarrow\) belief of negative association
    2. assimilation \(\leftarrow\) belief of positive association
    3. mood

Dimensional Comparison Theory

Generalized I/E Model (Möller et al., 2016)

Subsequent extension of DCT

Main assumptions:

  1. domain extension
    1. other subjects
    2. extra-academic domain
  2. causal relation
    1. predictors extension: domain-characteristics
    2. criteria extension: domain-specific beliefs and learning behaviors

Others

  1. Downward Comparison Theory (Wills, 1981) \(\rightarrow\) proven wrong (Gerber et al., 2018)
  2. Construal Theory and Upward Social Comparisons (Collins, 1996, 2000)
  3. Collins proposed the assimilation vs contrast effects
  4. It is similar to SAM
  5. Self-Evaluation Maintenance model (SEM) (Tesser, 1988)
    1. which is different than social comparison (Wheeler & Suls, 2020)
  6. Social Comparison Orientation (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999)
  7. local vs general comparison (Zell et al., 2020; Zell & Alicke, 2020)
  8. vertical vs horizontal comparison \(\leftrightarrow\) agentic and communal motives (Locke, 2014)
  9. Social Identity Theory and Self Categorization Theory
  10. Temporal comparison (Wilson & Shanahan, 2020)
  11. …

Experimental designs

These designs are taken from Gerber (2018) meta-analysis.

Reaction method

Type 1

  1. between subject design
  2. task: gambling task (e.g., roulette)
  3. conditions: 3X3
    1. roulette scenarios
      1. the participant gains X amount of money
      2. the participant loses X amount of money
      3. the participant doesn’t lose any money (even)
    2. comparison condition
      1. comparison with a participant with a lower credit
      2. comparison with a participant with a higher credit
      3. comparison with a participant with the same credit
      4. no comparison scenario (control condition)

Reaction method

  1. dependent variables
    1. self-esteem
    2. mood
    3. empathy toward the standard
    4. play intention

Type 2

  1. same structure as type 1.
  2. different task and dependent variables

Type 1 vs Type 2

  1. difference in self-evaluation
    1. The outcome of type 1 is based on luck \(\rightarrow\) no self-evaluation.
    2. The outcome of type 2 is based on the ability of the participant \(\rightarrow\) self-evaluation

Field study

  1. sample: gambling addicts
    1. online gambling
    2. offline gambling
    3. online and/or offline
  2. Self-recorded diary
    1. types of procedures
      1. event-contingent
      2. interval-contingent
      3. signal-contingent
  3. request: participants are instructed to complete a brief questionnaire on social comparison at the moment they become aware that they are engaging in social comparison during the gambling activity

Field study

  1. Self-recorded diary
    1. recorded variables
      1. “Type of social contact for this comparison”
      2. “comparison dimension”
      3. “Whom did you feel you compared with?”
        1. e.g. immaginary or real person, oneself, close friend, etc.
      4. Target’s sex
      5. “How similar are you to compared?”
      6. feelings before and after comparison
      7. “Please describe why you made this comparison with this particular person”
      8. gain, loss or even domain

Selection method?

Models’ predictions relative to the experimental designs

  1. Festinger’s Social Comparison Theory \(\rightarrow\) no predictions
  2. SAM model
    1. same category of the standard \(\rightarrow\) assimilation
    2. different category of the standard \(\rightarrow\) contrast
  3. attributional models \(\rightarrow\) no predictions
  4. Dimensional Comparison Theory \(\rightarrow\) no predictions

References

Arigo, D., Mogle, J. A., Brown, M. M., Pasko, K., Travers, L., Sweeder, L., & Smyth, J. M. (2020). Methods to assess social comparison processes within persons in daily life: A scoping review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02909
Collins, R. L. (1996). For better or worse: The impact of upward social comparison on self-evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 51.
Collins, R. L. (2000). Among the better ones: Upward assimilation in social comparison. In Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research (pp. 159–171). Springer.
Crusius, J., Corcoran, K., & Mussweiler, T. (2022). Social Comparison. Theories in Social Psychology, Second Edition, 165–187. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394266616.ch7
Epstude, K., & Mussweiler, T. (2009). What you feel is how you compare: How comparisons influence the social induction of affect. Emotion, 9(1), 1.
Gerber, J. P., Wheeler, L., & Suls, J. (2018). A social comparison theory meta-analysis 60+ years on. Psychological Bulletin, 144(2), 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000127
Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, B. P. (1999). Individual differences in social comparison: Development of a scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 129.
Goethals, G. R., & Darley, J. M. (1977). Social comparison theory: An attributional approach. Social Comparison Processes: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives, 259.
Helm, F., Marsh, H. W., Dicke, T., & Möller, J. (2020). Dimensional comparison theory: Extending the internal/external frame of reference model.
Locke, K. D. (2014). Agency and communion in social comparisons. Communal Functions of Social Comparison, 11–38.
Marsh, H. W. (1986). Verbal and math self-concepts: An internal/external frame of reference model. American Educational Research Journal, 23(1), 129–149.
Martin, R. (2000). “Can i do x?” Using the proxy comparison model to predict performance. In Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research (pp. 67–80). Springer.
Möller, J., & Köller, O. (2001). Dimensional comparisons: An experimental approach to the internal/external frame of reference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(4), 826.
Möller, J., Müller-Kalthoff, H., Helm, F., Nagy, N., & Marsh, H. W. (2016). The generalized internal/external frame of reference model: An extension to dimensional comparison theory.
Mussweiler, T. (2020). How social comparison affects the self: The selective accessibility mechanism.
Suls, J., Martin, R., & Wheeler, L. (2000). Three kinds of opinion comparison: The triadic model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(3), 219–237.
Suls, J., & Wheeler, L. (2020). Looking up and ahead: The social comparison of abilities, personal attributes, and opinions.
Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 181–227). Elsevier.
Wheeler, L., Martin, R., & Suls, J. (1997). The proxy model of social comparison for self-assessment of ability. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(1), 54–61.
Wheeler, L., & Miyake, K. (1992). Social comparison in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(5), 760.
Wheeler, L., & Suls, J. (2020). A history of social comparison theory. Social Comparison, Judgment, and Behavior, 5–31.
Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 90(2), 245.
Wilson, A. E., & Shanahan, E. (2020). Temporal comparisons in a social world. Social Comparison, Judgment, and Behavior, 309–344.
Wood, J. V. (1996). What is Social Comparison and How Should We Study it? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(5), 520–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296225009
Zell, E., & Alicke, M. D. (2020). Effects of local and general comparisons on self-assessment. Social Comparison, Judgment, and Behavior, 143–177.
Zell, E., Strickhouser, J. E., Sedikides, C., & Alicke, M. D. (2020). The better-than-average effect in comparative self-evaluation: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(2), 118.